Shri B.S. Tomar vs Haryana State Minor Irrigation ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 1108 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. This writ petition, inter alia, challenges the order of the respondent whereby the respondent has imposed a penalty of deduction of Rs. 11, 000/- from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner retired on 31.1.1999 and received a charge-sheet in September, 1999 for an act purported to have been committed in the year 1986 i.e. 13 years prior to his retirement. Following was the charge :

"1. That a ban on recruitment of workcharge staff was imposed by the Corporation vide letter No. 1978-2050/Est.91/Admn.5 dated 23.1.1985. It was specifically mentioned therein that any officer violating these instructions will be personally held responsible for making payment of salary and allowances to the employees thus recruited. A copy of these instructions was again sent to all the Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers of HSMITC with this office letter No. 29937-30017/Admn.V dated 29.09.1987 for compliance of the same in letter and spirit. A plain reading of the aforesaid instructions in unambiguous and clear terms depicts that a blanket ban was imposed on recruitment of workcharge employees in any trade. In utter violation and defiance of the said blanket ban imposed, he employed one worker which caused recurring financial loss to the Corporation. The details of the workers employed by him and the amount of wages paid to them up to 12/98 up to their retirement on superannuation is depicted in Annexure-I to the charge-sheet."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the issuance of a charge-sheet or any inquiry was in contravention of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid Rule postulates that no disciplinary proceedings shall be instituted against an officer on his retirement in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such retirement. Aforesaid Rule 2.2 (b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II is to the following effect :-

"2.2 (b) - The Government further reserves to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:

Provided that -

(1)Such disciplinary proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be as proceeding under this article and shall be continued by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer continued in service;

(2)Such disciplinary proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:-

(i)shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government.

(ii)Shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution."

4. The petitioner has also pleaded that the issuance of the charge-sheet and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was in contravention of Punjab Civil Services Rules. Although, counter affidavit has been filed no specific reply has been given by the respondent with regard to the averment made by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, after filing of the counter affidavit nobody has been appearing for the respondent. Even on the last date of hearing, the matter was adjourned as nobody was present on behalf of the respondent. The same is the case today. The petitioner has also challenged the inquiry conducted by the respondent. It has been contended that relevant material has not been taken into consideration. Attention of this Court is invited to the comments on the reply received from the petitioner by the officers of respondent itself at page 54 of the paper-book it was mentioned that the person for whom the petitioner was charge-sheeted had been working with the respondent from 8.11.1973 and it was during inspection by Superintending Engineer at Loharu the petitioner was directed to engage the said worker Rama Nand again on temporary basis on the tubewell where Sprinkler sets were to be installed as demanded by the SDO vide his letter No. 306/2E dated 30.4.1986 and that aspect of the matter has not been taken note in the inquiry proceedings.

5. In view of the specific bar of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II that no disciplinary proceedings shall be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution as well as relevant material not taken into consideration that worker Rama Nand was employed since 1973 and at the relevant time he was again employed at the direction of the then Superintending Engineer no fault could be assigned to the petitioner, I quash the order dated 23.5.2001 imposing a penalty of Rs. 11, 000/- on the petitioner. As the said amount has already been realised from the petitioner, petitioner shall be paid the said amount along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

6. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.